A Prescription for Trouble

A Prescription for Trouble

Several hundred members of the American Medical Students
Association (AMSA), many of them representing the country's finest
medical schools, gathered in white coats on the steps of the U.S.
Capitol on March 16 to rally for government-run health care. To
anyone familiar with what socialized medicine inevitably brings -
long lines, rationed care, frustrated doctors - it was like
watching prisoners rally for more jail time.

The rally organizers correctly pointed out that 44 million
Americans lack health insurance, a number that continues to expand.
Several speakers, including Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Jim
McDermott, D-Wash., claimed that government-run health care is
necessary to give these people equal access to medical care at
little or no cost. But what has been the experience in countries
that have tried socialized medicine?

Consider Canada and Britain, both of which are often cited as
"models" for American health care by supporters of a government-run
system. Canadians wait a median of six weeks to see a specialist
following a referral from their family doctor. They are then forced
to wait about another seven weeks to receive the treatment the
specialist recommends. Should they need a CAT scan, the median wait
is five weeks; for an MRI, 11 weeks. In America, you can get an MRI
for your family pet within a day or two.

Indeed, among the 29 countries that belong to the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada ranks 21st in
availability of CAT scanners, and 19th in availability of MRIs. In
availability of overall medical technology, only three countries
consistently rank below Canada: Mexico, Poland and Turkey.

Waiting lists for emergency surgeries in Canada are sometimes so
long that the procedures never take place. The Canadian Medical
Association reported last year that 121 patients in Ontario
scheduled for bypass surgery had been permanently removed from the
waiting list. The reason: They had waited so long they were deemed
medically unfit to undergo surgery without an unacceptable risk of
dying. Similar examples, equally shocking, abound.

In Britain, survival rates for cancer rank far below the average
for an industrialized country. The World Health Organization
estimates that 25,000 people in Britain die unnecessarily of cancer
every year - people who would likely have survived had they been in
the United States. For a British man with colon cancer, the
five-year survival rate is 41 percent; in the United States, 64
percent. For lung cancer, the survival rates are 6 percent and 13
percent, respectively. Women with breast cancer in Britain survive
in 67 percent of cases after five years, compared with 84 percent
of American women.

The structure of the British system is rigged so that the
authority of government bureaucrats to limit spending undermines
the ability of doctors to deliver care. The health service is
divided up into 115 local authorities, with each one given a fixed
budget. It is up to these local authorities to determine how to
spend the money, and - more ominously - who to spend it on.
It is not uncommon for elderly patients requiring expensive care to
be left untreated so that budget targets can be met.

So the question arises: Do AMSA members know what they're asking
for? I spoke with several students at the rally to find out if
these doctors-to-be truly understood the implications of
government-run health care. No one I encountered had the foggiest
idea. I asked Ron from Emory University if he thought the switch to
a single-payer system would negatively affect patient care. "I
don't see why," he said. Laura from the Medical College of Georgia
told me, "I don't know much about [a single-payer system], I just
support it."

Responses like this were typical. Yet these students were
prepared to lobby in support of a single-payer health-care system
that neither they nor their elected representatives fully
understand. The inevitable results of such a system - which the
students obviously don't realize - include substandard technology,
lengthy waiting lists and minimal physician autonomy.

Despite its good intentions, single-payer, government-run health
care does not come close to delivering what Americans have come to
expect from the best health-care system in the world. Sorry Doogie
- I'm afraid you've misdiagnosed this one.

James Frogue is a health-care policy analyst for The Heritage
Foundation,Washington-based public policy research
institute.

Distributed nationally by Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service

Donate to The Heritage Foundation

Our more than 100 policy experts and researchers are invited to testify before Congress nearly 40 times a year